Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Article from _The Economist_; yes it's about basketb...

Expand Messages
  • bchaikin@aol.com
    Dampier had 2 straight 20-rebound games, and a recent rebounding tear that coincided with an 8-1 streak by the team. He s ended his season as he started it,
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dampier had 2 straight 20-rebound games, and a recent rebounding tear that coincided with an 8-1 streak by the team. He's ended his season as he started it, with a relative lull in the middle.  Is it a fluke season because he's 29 and should be peaking?

      i kind of touched on this in posting 3646...

      What should define a Fluke Season? 

      IMHO one that is out of character of a defined pattern of play - meaning someone who has played a number of seasons (at least 3-5), having played substantial minutes (1000, maybe less, per season), whose performance has "leveled" out, meaning not necessarily peaked but a certain level or pattern of production has been established, and then drastically improves or gets worse (gets worse without injury)...

      A subsequent season that is not as strong?  Or a next-season that is a reversion to his career average?

      I'm curious what people would care to predict about whether these players are having Fluke Seasons.  We might define it as whether next year they've reverted more than halfway back to their career norms.

      Lamar Odom

      no, his season now is very much similar to his 00-01 clipper season...

      Brian Cardinal

      no, has no previous "record" of any substantial playing time...

      Raja Bell

      no - only his 3rd season playing any kind of substantial minutes...

      Erick Dampier

      yes - see posting 3646...

      Donyell Marshall

      no - pretty much the same player he's been the last 3 seasons...

      Jim Jackson

      no - he's had better seasons, this one now is statistically almost identical to his 01-02 season with the heat, but i never would have suspected him being a really good defensive as 82games.com shows...

      Antonio Daniels

      possibly - see posting 3152...

      Joe Johnson

      no - only his 4th season in the league...

      Fred Hoiberg

      no - see posting 3370...

      Sam Cassell

      no - he's been a model of consistency for a number of years, and has been playing just slightly better these past two seasons...

      bob chaikin
      bchaikin@...

    • Kevin Pelton
      Can we all agree that if you think Dampier is a flashy player, you ve never watched more than five games of basketball in your life? ... By your own standard,
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Can we all agree that if you think Dampier is a flashy player,
        you've never watched more than five games of basketball in your life?

        > > What should define a Fluke Season? 
        >
        > IMHO one that is out of character of a defined pattern of play -
        > meaning someone who has played a number of seasons (at least 3-5),
        > having played substantial minutes (1000, maybe less, per season),
        > whose performance has "leveled" out, meaning not necessarily
        > peaked but a certain level or pattern of production has been
        > established, and then drastically improves or gets worse (gets
        > worse without injury)...

        By your own standard, Dampier pretty clearly is not having a fluke
        season, in that he had not "leveled" prior to this year. Before last
        season, he had leveled off at a sub-mediocre level of performance,
        but he dramatically improved last year -- in fact, in a point I
        don't think anyone else has pointed out, JohnH has Dampier as one of
        his fluke players this year.

        Take a look at this graph of Dampier's efficiency by my formula
        divided by replacement level year-by-year:
        http://www.sonicscentral.com/dampiereff.jpg

        That's not a player who's leveled off. PER shows a similar pattern,
        so I didn't bother graphing it.

        To quote JohnH, "Dampier enjoyed a career year at the age of 28,
        which means I'll be looking very closely at him this season. The
        Fluke Rule says that players who make sudden jumps in productivity
        after 27 almost always come back to earth the next season, but 28-
        year-olds do less serverely than others."

        Well, Dampier hasn't come back to earth, he's been even better. Two
        years of well above-average play in the middle seems an awful lot to
        explain away to a fluke to me. Dampier is extremely unlikely to
        repeat this year's All-Star level performance in the future, but
        given the current level of centers in the NBA, he's still a very
        valuable free agent.

        Comparing him to a player in McIlvaine who signed his contract a
        year after averaging 3.8 points and 4.0 rebounds per game (with
        48.6% true shooting percentage and 10.7 boards per 48 minutes) is
        incredibly unfair and insulting to Dampier.
      • bchaikin@aol.com
        ... By your own standard, Dampier pretty clearly is not having a fluke season, in that he had not leveled prior to this year. Before last season, he had
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > IMHO one that is out of character of a defined pattern of play -
          > meaning someone who has played a number of seasons (at least 3-5),
          > having played substantial minutes (1000, maybe less, per season),
          > whose performance has "leveled" out, meaning not necessarily
          > peaked but a certain level or pattern of production has been
          > established, and then drastically improves or gets worse (gets
          > worse without injury)...

          By your own standard, Dampier pretty clearly is not having a fluke season, in that he had not "leveled" prior to this year. Before last season, he had leveled off at a sub-mediocre level of performance, but he dramatically improved last year -- in fact, in a point I don't think anyone else has pointed out, JohnH has Dampier as one of his fluke players this year.

          quite the contrary... by my own standard he clearly had a 'leveled' performance prior to this current season, in which he is now having a fluke good season (but thanks for speaking for me anyway)......

          currently i use a tendex-like per minute production rating for a quick (not a definitive but quick look, for anything more i use simulation) look at how players change from year to year - the only difference is that i rate a FGmissed as less than 1, about 0.67, all other coefficients are 1 (pts+reb+ast+st+bs-0.67xFGmissed-FTmissed-pf-to, all divided by minutes). not a perfect rating system but it is a quick rating for production - the ability to rack up measurable quantifiable stats - and as such i use it for quick evaluations because it shows how a player's production changes from season to season....

          so by my own standards e.dampier is clearly having a fluke season. his 02-03 production per min was indeed better than his previous high in 97-98 (when he played his career high in minutes), but only by about 7% more on a per minute basis, and from 98-99 to 01-02 it was less but not substantially less than his average. not counting 99-00 when he played only 495 minutes, prior to this season he had played six seasons with between 1000 and 2700 minutes - by my standard more than enough to establish a definitive pattern, which he had done. his per minute production wavered between .32 and .43 per min, but the difference of each of those seasons from the average of them all is not IMHO enough to justify any of his performances to be considered a fluke in either way (better or worse)....

          but his production per minute this season is much higher, incredibly despite less touches/min, than all but one of his previous seasons (last year in 02-03), and this season he is 22% higher per minute than his previous best (02-03), and over 35% over his previously defined average. that to me clearly qualifies this year as a fluke season...

          That's not a player who's leveled off....

          again, by my standards it is. a 7% improvement on your previous best to me does not constitute anything major....

          PER shows a similar pattern, so I didn't bother graphing it....

          i don't know exactly what PER is (page 11 of his 03-04 book), but if it does not show dampier's 03-04 performance as being significantly better per minute than last season, and even more significantly better than his average production from 96-97 to 02-03, i don't know if i would trust that rating system. that does not mean his rating system is any worse or better than what i use, it just means that by the methods i use i see it differently. his 03-04 book has sam cassell rated better than jason kidd by PER in 02-03, i clearly have jason kidd as being better per minute (by about 10%)...

          but i suggest we let JohnH say for himself, rather than you. you have a habit of speaking for others ("...by your own standard, dampier is clearly not having a fluke season...")...

          Well, Dampier hasn't come back to earth, he's been even better...

          exactly.... that's why this is a fluke good season...

          Two years of well above-average play in the middle seems an awful lot to explain away to a fluke to me.

          fine - then you sign him to a huge mega bucks contract. but i sure wouldn't - all the historical evidence points to me that he'll have few - if any - seasons in the future like this current season. and since if he is signed as a free agent odds are the contract would be for more than 1 or 2 seasons, paying a 29 year old for one really good season with a contract going for 4 or 5 at mega bucks IMHO would be ill-advised....

          bob chaikin
          bchaikin@...

        • Mike G
          wrote: ... Two ... to ... Hakeem Olajuwon busted out in 1993, at age 29-30. He continued his megastar play for a few years. Magic Johnson s
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            <kpelton08@h...> wrote:
            ...>
            > To quote JohnH, ".. The
            > Fluke Rule says that players who make sudden jumps in productivity
            > after 27 almost always come back to earth the next season,..."
            >
            > Well, Dampier hasn't come back to earth, he's been even better.
            Two
            > years of well above-average play in the middle seems an awful lot
            to
            > explain away to a fluke to me...

            Hakeem Olajuwon "busted out" in 1993, at age 29-30. He continued
            his megastar play for a few years.

            Magic Johnson's most dominant seasons came after the age of 27.

            Larry Bird had a similar career trajectory, peaking at age 28-31.

            Shaq's most monster year was at age 27-28.

            Duncan's approaching year 28 and still improving.

            Ditto, Garnett.

            Maybe the data that shows "most players" have peaked before age 28
            are biased by the effect that marginal players are peaking at age
            23 -- and out of the league by age 27.

            Meanwhile, average players may peak at age 25, done by 29. (Numbers
            off the top of my head)

            Presumably, smaller players rely more on quickness; when that begins
            to fail, their usefulness is curtailed.

            But big men seem to do better by merely surviving, and adding skills
            to their repertoire. Beefing up doesn't seem to slow them as much.


            > Dampier is extremely unlikely to
            > repeat this year's All-Star level performance in the future, ...

            Interesting prediction, but given that quite a few big men make such
            a career jump at just about this age, I'd be reluctant to back such
            a prediction.

            I'll predict that he comes back next year at a level closer to this
            year than to last year. I'd make that prediction with anyone,
            barring extenuating circumstances: known injury, etc.


            >
            > Comparing him to a player in McIlvaine who signed his contract a
            > year after averaging 3.8 points and 4.0 rebounds per game (with
            > 48.6% true shooting percentage and 10.7 boards per 48 minutes) is
            > incredibly unfair and insulting to Dampier.

            I recall McIlvaine's selling point was his shotblocking rate.
          • bchaikin@aol.com
            Well, Dampier hasn t come back to earth, he s been even better. Two years of well above-average play in the middle seems an awful lot to explain away to a
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, Dampier hasn't come back to earth, he's been even better. Two years of well above-average play in the middle seems an awful lot to explain away to a fluke to me...

              Hakeem Olajuwon "busted out" in 1993, at age 29-30.  He continued his megastar play for a few years. Magic Johnson's most dominant seasons came after the age of 27. Larry Bird had a similar career trajectory, peaking at age 28-31. Shaq's most monster year was at age 27-28. Duncan's approaching year 28 and still improving. Ditto, Garnett.

              Maybe the data that shows "most players" have peaked before age 28 are biased by the effect that marginal players are peaking at age 23 -- and out of the league by age 27.

              yes - "most players" includes those. it also includes all those players who have played in the league on nothing more than 10 day contracts, and also all those CBA-lifers who have a cup of coffee in the league (1 year at most), plus all players who play 10-15 year careers and end up in the hall of fame...

              Meanwhile, average players may peak at age 25, done by 29.  (Numbers off the top of my head)

              actually the historical numbers show - on average, meaning this includes all players - a player who plays substantial minutes his first 3 years in the league peaks about his 3rd-4th season in terms of production (piling up stats that are measured) and maintains that for another 3-4-5 seasons, then begins a descent, typically about age 29-30. since the average college player graduates at age 22-23, your numbers are pretty much correct...

              Presumably, smaller players rely more on quickness; when that begins to fail, their usefulness is curtailed. But big men seem to do better by merely surviving, and adding skills to their repertoire.  Beefing up doesn't seem to slow them as much.

              big men hang around longer than little men possibly because they are like L handed pitchers in baseball - there aren't a whole lot of them to go around, you need them, and thus are at a premium if they can play at all...

              Interesting prediction, but given that quite a few big men make such a career jump at just about this age, I'd be reluctant to back such a prediction.

              define "...quite a few....". 2%, 5%, 50%? or just future hall of famers?..

              unfortunately all the examples mentioned above are sure hall of famers. e.dampier had been in the league a full seven years before he had his, quote, bust out season if you want to call it that, and i don't think anyone would consider him a sure hall of famer based on his performance during his first 7 seasons in the league...

              dampier's 02-03 season, as i see it, was his best season up and to that point, but it wasn't much better than his 97-98 season. his production minute-wise this 03-04 is substantially better this year than last (and 97-98). since it appears the majority of his "improvement" this season over those two seasons has been via his rebounding, about the only other example i can think of that could parallel his "potential" future would be the performance of somebody like robert parish, who in his 12th season in the league dramatically improved his overall rebounding by over 17%-20% (compared to his previous 5 seasons), and then managed to maintain that level of performance rebounding-wise for another 4-5 seasons...

              so it is possible - but i certainly do not put e.dampier in parish's class of talent...

              I'll predict that he comes back next year at a level closer to this year than to last year.  I'd make that prediction with anyone, barring extenuating circumstances:  known injury, etc.

              but unfortunately extenuating circumstances do play a part in this, as when players reach their 30s injuries, competition from younger players, etc, start to occur more often. so if you're an NBA GM, you gonna' stake your reputation on that prediction, knowing those occur more often at that age? you going to sign a center with one really good season under his belt (possibly 2-3 if you include 02-03 and 97-98 as really good), with a career trend of low touches/min such that he will never be a major factor on offense, whose shot blocking is now half of what it used to be, and who has had a scoring FG% that in the past 8 seasons has only twice been above the league average, to a multi-year contract for dollars being paid star players?...

              if e.dampier does play another season with rebounding wizards like clifford robinson in particular along his side for most of the season he could do this again. but if he's signed as a free agent or traded to someone who has at least average rebounders for their positions in the frontcourt, strong odds are that he won't....

              bob chaikin
              bchaikin@...

            • igor eduardo küpfer
              From: Mike G To: Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:17 AM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Dampier (was
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                From: "Mike G" <msg_53@...>
                To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:17 AM
                Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Dampier (was Article from _The Economist_)


                <snip>
                > Maybe the data that shows "most players" have peaked before age 28
                > are biased by the effect that marginal players are peaking at age
                > 23 -- and out of the league by age 27.
                >
                > Meanwhile, average players may peak at age 25, done by 29. (Numbers
                > off the top of my head)
                >

                I looked at peak Manley Credit performances for 54 All-NBA players. I
                plotted the aging curve here:
                http://members.rogers.com/edkupfer/images/peakperformance.htm
                The decline after age 30 is precipitous. Only 14 of 48 (29%) 31-year-olds
                maintained their 30-year-old performances.


                ed
              • Kevin Pelton
                ... Valuable stuff, Ed. The projection system I ve worked on has the theoretical benefit of being able to capture effects like centers peaking later or good
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I looked at peak Manley Credit performances for 54 All-NBA players.
                  > I plotted the aging curve here:
                  > http://members.rogers.com/edkupfer/images/peakperformance.htm
                  > The decline after age 30 is precipitous. Only 14 of 48 (29%) 31
                  > year-olds maintained their 30-year-old performances.

                  Valuable stuff, Ed.

                  The projection system I've worked on has the theoretical benefit of
                  being able to capture effects like centers peaking later or good
                  players peaking later in that only the performance of similar players
                  is used for projection. It was actually reasonably optimistic about
                  Dampier -- by contrast to his backup, Adonal Foyle, who is the same
                  age, Dampier had a lower rate of coppaging (defined as 20% decline or
                  greater, 22% vs. 28%) and a higher rate of improvement, but still one
                  below 50% (46% vs. 36%). Dampier, by this system, is playing at about
                  the 80% level of expectation -- not entirely unsustainable, but not
                  an easily predictable level either.

                  (How much this would change if I improved the system to add Dampier's
                  production prior to 2002-03 I don't know.)

                  One of the nice things about this system, which I've blatantly stolen
                  from _Baseball Prospectus_' Pecota, is that it looks at player
                  performance as probabilities as opposed to absolutes. The average
                  player development is important and valuable, but at the same time
                  we're really looking at, in Ed's case, 54 different player
                  development curves being slammed together. The average curve may
                  model the actual performance of only a handful of players.

                  I think it's better to say something like "Dampier is 75% likely to
                  play worse next season" as opposed to "He will play worse next
                  season" -- something I got away from a little bit during my previous
                  post.
                • Michael Tamada
                  ... From: igor eduardo küpfer [mailto:edkupfer@rogers.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 9:17 AM From: Mike G To:
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: igor eduardo küpfer [mailto:edkupfer@...]
                    Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 9:17 AM

                    From: "Mike G" <msg_53@...>
                    To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>

                    <snip>
                    >> Maybe the data that shows "most players" have peaked before age 28
                    >> are biased by the effect that marginal players are peaking at age
                    >> 23 -- and out of the league by age 27.
                    >>
                    >> Meanwhile, average players may peak at age 25, done by 29. (Numbers
                    >> off the top of my head)
                    >>
                    >
                    >I looked at peak Manley Credit performances for 54 All-NBA players. I
                    >plotted the aging curve here:
                    >http://members.rogers.com/edkupfer/images/peakperformance.htm
                    >The decline after age 30 is precipitous. Only 14 of 48 (29%) 31-year-olds
                    >maintained their 30-year-old performances.
                    >
                    >
                    >ed


                    Nice, it could be part of a "basketballgraphs.com" website, a counterpart
                    to "baseballgraphs.com". However it looks like your aging curve is based
                    on all the plotted points? I think it'd be better to instead plot 54
                    separate aging curves, and take the average of them ... wait no that would
                    lead to the same result that you already got. I guess what I mean is this:
                    if we're looking at a 29 year old Dampier or whoever, and trying to predict
                    what his age 30, 31, etc. stats will look like, then we don't want to look
                    at the overall average for 30-year olds (or 30-year old all-NBAers, or
                    whatever group). Instead we'd want to look at what the typical *change
                    in performance* is for a 30-year old, compared to what he did as a 29-year
                    old. And then correcting for the things that MikeG mentioned: big players may
                    "age more slowly"; star players may also. Also, players who rely on quickness
                    or jumping ability may have more problems when they hit 30. Players who rely
                    on outside shooting are an interesting conundrum: their bread-and-butter
                    techniques can keep them playing into their late 30s or even 40s (Dale Ellis,
                    Steve Kerr, etc.). But on the other hand, an inside-oriented player who
                    starts getting old has the potential to change his game and increase the
                    dimensions of his offense, specifically by developing an outside shot -- and
                    can thus prolong his career or slow down his decline. Jordan and Erving
                    certainly did this; dunking less and shooting outside more as they got older.
                    I think Karl Malone did too, at least I don't remember him taking as many
                    outside shots in his younger days.


                    --MKT
                  • John Hollinger
                    ... if it does ... per minute ... average ... rating system. that ... use, it ... 04 book has ... have jason ... Gladly. First, an aside on Kidd and Cassell:
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > i don't know exactly what PER is (page 11 of his 03-04 book), but
                      if it does
                      > not show dampier's 03-04 performance as being significantly better
                      per minute
                      > than last season, and even more significantly better than his
                      average
                      > production from 96-97 to 02-03, i don't know if i would trust that
                      rating system. that
                      > does not mean his rating system is any worse or better than what i
                      use, it
                      > just means that by the methods i use i see it differently. his 03-
                      04 book has
                      > sam cassell rated better than jason kidd by PER in 02-03, i clearly
                      have jason
                      > kidd as being better per minute (by about 10%)...
                      >
                      > but i suggest we let JohnH say for himself


                      Gladly. First, an aside on Kidd and Cassell: I'm assuming the
                      difference is because your rating attempted more defensive accounting
                      (i.e., going beyond steals/blocks) than mine. Lemme know if I'm
                      mistaken.

                      As for Dampier, as Kevin points out, I had him rated as a Fluke year
                      candidate. The other seven players -- Shawn Bradley, Howard Eisley,
                      Grant Hill, Jason Kidd, Toni Kukoc, Brian Grant and David Wesley --
                      are more than doing their part to prove the rule.

                      But Dampier is now going to be a DOUBLE FLUKE -- he's going to
                      quality again this year. I have to go back through my data and see if
                      there's even been one of these before. I have no idea what the hell
                      happened, although certainly replacing Murphy with Clifford Robinson
                      gave him more rebounds.

                      Regardless, in next year's player comments, I will be sure to note
                      that the Brits consider Dampier quite flashy.
                    • Michael Tamada
                      ... From: Michael Tamada Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:09 PM [...] ... [...] ... Clarifying: so the averages that we d plot would be based on a player s
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Michael Tamada
                        Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:09 PM

                        [...]

                        >Nice, it could be part of a "basketballgraphs.com" website, a counterpart
                        >to "baseballgraphs.com". However it looks like your aging curve is based
                        >on all the plotted points? I think it'd be better to instead plot 54
                        >separate aging curves, and take the average of them ... wait no that would
                        >lead to the same result that you already got. I guess what I mean is this:

                        [...]

                        >whatever group). Instead we'd want to look at what the typical *change
                        >in performance* is for a 30-year old, compared to what he did as a 29-year
                        >old. And then correcting for the things that MikeG mentioned: big players may

                        Clarifying: so the averages that we'd plot would be based on a player's CHANGE
                        from the year before, rather than averages of their level at that year.

                        >Steve Kerr, etc.). But on the other hand, an inside-oriented player who
                        >starts getting old has the potential to change his game and increase the
                        >dimensions of his offense, specifically by developing an outside shot -- and
                        >can thus prolong his career or slow down his decline. Jordan and Erving
                        >certainly did this; dunking less and shooting outside more as they got older.
                        >I think Karl Malone did too, at least I don't remember him taking as many
                        >outside shots in his younger days.

                        I forgot to mention also how players such as Jack Sikma and Kevin McChale
                        started adding 3-pointers to their offensive reportoires in their later years.
                        Oh, and Sam Perkins. And other players such as Terry Cummings and Ron Harper
                        seem to extend their careers by stopping from shooting period, and just becoming
                        defensive role players.


                        --MKT
                      • bchaikin@aol.com
                        but i suggest we let JohnH say for himself... Gladly. First, an aside on Kidd and Cassell: I m assuming the difference is because your rating attempted more
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          but i suggest we let JohnH say for himself...

                          Gladly. First, an aside on Kidd and Cassell: I'm assuming the difference is because your rating attempted more defensive accounting (i.e., going beyond steals/blocks) than mine. Lemme know if I'm mistaken.

                          actually on kidd versus cassell for 02-03, if you add it up what i am calling their production (pts+reb+ast+st+bs-0.67xFGmissed-FTmissed-pf-to) and divide by their minutes played, kidd's at 0.649/min and cassell's at 0.579/min (again may not be the best rating system but its easy and telling). each is a single season high for their respective careers. again this is a simple calculation, and looking at your PER formula i have no idea if they are compatible - again i have no clue which is more "realistic". that why i use the sim...

                          having said that i ran an 8200 game simulation (100 simulated seasons) with both on the 02-03 nets for 40 min/g and both on the 02-03 bucks. although i have kidd rated a much better defender in 02-03 (-5.0% to +3.5% for cassell), i changed both to 0.0% (avg defender) prior to running the sim, i.e. they had the same defensive FG%. overall kidd made the nets 2 games better per avg 82 game season than cassell did and he made the bucks 1 game better per avg 82 game season than cassell - not much of a difference. the difference would be larger if i used what i had them rated at defensively....

                          As for Dampier, as Kevin points out, I had him rated as a Fluke year candidate. The other seven players -- Shawn Bradley, Howard Eisley, Grant Hill, Jason Kidd, Toni Kukoc, Brian Grant and David Wesley -- are more than doing their part to prove the rule.

                          But Dampier is now going to be a DOUBLE FLUKE -- he's going to quality again this year. I have to go back through my data and see if there's even been one of these before. I have no idea what the hell happened, although certainly replacing Murphy with Clifford Robinson
                          gave him more rebounds.

                          again look at ben wallace's rebounding last season and this season, then dampier's last season and this season. the key to each's major improvement is the presence of weak rebounding clifford robinson playing major minutes alongside them. doesn't mean they weren't great rebounders - in just means you have to put their performance in context...

                          as for kidd, i find his performance in 02-03 just a few percentage points better than his 98-99 season, and just a couple of percentage points more than this 03-04 season. eisley in 02-03 had a slightly better season in 97-98, kukoc had a better season in 00-01 than in 02-03, same with wesley, same with b.grant. none i would consider to have had fluke performances (just my definition of fluke). but dampier's numbers this year are significantly better than last year, and much better than anything before in 7 seasons. that to me is a sure fluke, to the point that you'd have to be crazy to sign him to any kind of major megabucks long term deal...

                          bob chaikin
                          bchaikin@...


                        • igor eduardo küpfer
                          -- ed ... From: Michael Tamada To: Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 5:45 PM Subject: RE: [APBR_analysis] Re:
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --

                            ed
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Michael Tamada" <tamada@...>
                            To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 5:45 PM
                            Subject: RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Dampier (was Article from _The Economist_)


                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Michael Tamada
                            > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 2:09 PM
                            >
                            > [...]
                            >
                            > >Nice, it could be part of a "basketballgraphs.com" website, a counterpart
                            > >to "baseballgraphs.com". However it looks like your aging curve is based
                            > >on all the plotted points? I think it'd be better to instead plot 54
                            > >separate aging curves, and take the average of them ... wait no that
                            would
                            > >lead to the same result that you already got. I guess what I mean is
                            this:
                            >
                            > [...]
                            >
                            > >whatever group). Instead we'd want to look at what the typical *change
                            > >in performance* is for a 30-year old, compared to what he did as a
                            29-year
                            > >old. And then correcting for the things that MikeG mentioned: big
                            players may
                            >
                            > Clarifying: so the averages that we'd plot would be based on a player's
                            CHANGE
                            > from the year before, rather than averages of their level at that year.
                            >

                            Okay, I uploaded another graph, this time plotting Manley Credits in terms
                            of percent change from the previous season.

                            http://members.rogers.com/edkupfer/images/peakperformance.htm

                            Note: I've changed the Manley Credit stats from season totals to per game
                            averages.


                            > >Steve Kerr, etc.). But on the other hand, an inside-oriented player who
                            > >starts getting old has the potential to change his game and increase the
                            > >dimensions of his offense, specifically by developing an outside shot --
                            and
                            > >can thus prolong his career or slow down his decline. Jordan and Erving
                            > >certainly did this; dunking less and shooting outside more as they got
                            older.
                            > >I think Karl Malone did too, at least I don't remember him taking as many
                            > >outside shots in his younger days.
                            >
                            > I forgot to mention also how players such as Jack Sikma and Kevin McChale
                            > started adding 3-pointers to their offensive reportoires in their later
                            years.
                            > Oh, and Sam Perkins. And other players such as Terry Cummings and Ron
                            Harper
                            > seem to extend their careers by stopping from shooting period, and just
                            becoming
                            > defensive role players.
                            >

                            There is definitely a limit to my approach here -- Manley Credits is a good
                            approximation of total contributions, but it doesn't really tell us about
                            changes in playing style or effectiveness in different facets of the game.
                            If I have time, I'll try to put together more graphs, focusing on
                            rebounding, shooting accuracy, etc.

                            BTW Mike, I didn't get the post you quote above. Did I miss anything good?

                            ed
                          • Michael Tamada
                            ... From: igor eduardo küpfer [mailto:edkupfer@rogers.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:20 PM ... Interesting differences in the graphs; the first one
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 6, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: igor eduardo küpfer [mailto:edkupfer@...]
                              Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:20 PM

                              >> Clarifying: so the averages that we'd plot would be based on a player's
                              >CHANGE
                              >> from the year before, rather than averages of their level at that year.
                              >>
                              >
                              >Okay, I uploaded another graph, this time plotting Manley Credits in terms
                              >of percent change from the previous season.
                              >
                              >http://members.rogers.com/edkupfer/images/peakperformance.htm
                              >
                              >Note: I've changed the Manley Credit stats from season totals to per game
                              >averages.

                              Interesting differences in the graphs; the first one suggested a peak at age 26
                              then a strange final peak at age 30 followed by steep declines. The second
                              and third graphs, which I believe to be the better ones, suggest a peak at ages
                              26 and 27 (age 27 averaging 100% of the age 26 performance) followed by 3 almost
                              flat years and then a substantial decline after age 30.

                              BobC's numbers seems to be based more on seasons in the league rather than age, but
                              seem to point to peaks at age 24-25 and declines starting around 29-30, so a year
                              or two earlier. But he was looking at a broader set of players than the All-NBAers,
                              and it wouldn't surprise me if MikeG is right that the star players have later peaks
                              or at least delayed precipitous declines, relative to the kinds of players who are
                              washed up at age 31.

                              >BTW Mike, I didn't get the post you quote above. Did I miss anything good?

                              It was mainly just elaboration and explanation of the points that you did see. I
                              think the fragment that you saw contains the core concepts. I'll forward the post
                              to you, in case it still hasn't arrived at your mail server.


                              --MKT
                            • igor eduardo küpfer
                              ... From: Michael Tamada To: Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:02 AM Subject: RE: [APBR_analysis] Re:
                              Message 14 of 21 , Apr 7, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "Michael Tamada" <tamada@...>
                                To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:02 AM
                                Subject: RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Dampier (was Article from _The Economist_)


                                >Interesting differences in the graphs; the first one suggested a peak at
                                age 26
                                >then a strange final peak at age 30 followed by steep declines. The second
                                >and third graphs, which I believe to be the better ones, suggest a peak at
                                ages
                                >26 and 27 (age 27 averaging 100% of the age 26 performance) followed by 3
                                almost
                                >flat years and then a substantial decline after age 30.
                                >
                                >BobC's numbers seems to be based more on seasons in the league rather than
                                age, but
                                >seem to point to peaks at age 24-25 and declines starting around 29-30, so
                                a year
                                >or two earlier. But he was looking at a broader set of players than the
                                All-NBAers,
                                >and it wouldn't surprise me if MikeG is right that the star players have
                                later peaks
                                >or at least delayed precipitous declines, relative to the kinds of players
                                who are
                                >washed up at age 31.

                                I've uploaded a few more graphs, focusing on specific stats:

                                http://members.rogers.com/edkupfer/images/effects_of_aging.htm

                                They show that some things, like FT% and defensive rebounding rates, are
                                largely unaffected by aging, while other stats, like turnovers and
                                possessions, are largely determined by a players age.

                                I hope my graphs are clear. I don't know too much about making them, and
                                used this opportunity to practise a bit. The details of each graph show the
                                interquartile range, between which half of all observations can be found.


                                ed
                              • Mike G
                                ... wrote: .. ... to predict ... to look ... NBAers, or ... *change ... 29-year ... It so happens I ve been doing something like this. I also corrected for
                                Message 15 of 21 , Apr 7, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Tamada" <tamada@o...>
                                  wrote:
                                  ..
                                  > if we're looking at a 29 year old Dampier or whoever, and trying
                                  to predict
                                  > what his age 30, 31, etc. stats will look like, then we don't want
                                  to look
                                  > at the overall average for 30-year olds (or 30-year old all-
                                  NBAers, or
                                  > whatever group). Instead we'd want to look at what the typical
                                  *change
                                  > in performance* is for a 30-year old, compared to what he did as a
                                  29-year
                                  > old.

                                  It so happens I've been doing something like this.

                                  I also corrected for what might be considered a "bias" in a manley-
                                  type production figure: the NBA has overall been
                                  losing "productivity", on a per-game basis. Thus, all 30-year-olds
                                  have been around long enough to see a significant decrease in
                                  production, among all players.

                                  My figures show a per-game/per-team high around 144 in the mid-'80s,
                                  which has since dropped to about 125. Not sure of the manley
                                  formula Ed used, but I'm applying one equally to teams and
                                  individuals; using a formula like the one BobC layed out.

                                  Briefly, I see an average change based on age that looks like this:

                                  %inc is average increase (decrease if negative) of the age group
                                  that went on to play the next year, in "manley credits".

                                  SS# is sample size (player-seasons since 1978)

                                  age %inc SS#
                                  18 .897 3
                                  19 .332 12
                                  20 .353 30
                                  21 .130 94
                                  22 .224 360
                                  23 .113 729
                                  24 .044 771
                                  25 -.011 734
                                  26 -.020 700
                                  27 -.065 625
                                  28 -.071 562
                                  29 -.094 519
                                  30 -.129 453
                                  31 -.171 374
                                  32 -.125 274
                                  33 -.181 203
                                  34 -.183 142
                                  35 -.178 91
                                  36 -.246 62
                                  37 -.319 36
                                  38 -.236 20
                                  39 -.026 8
                                  40 -.246 3
                                  41 -.271 2
                                  42 -.604 1

                                  For 519 players age 29 who went on to play in their 30th year, an
                                  average loss of 9.4% has occurred.

                                  Earlier studies have shown an erosion of minutes, on average, from
                                  year to year in a player's career. No doubt, this is a part
                                  contributor in the total production a player loses. I'll be back
                                  with per-minute losses due to aging.
                                • igor eduardo küpfer
                                  ... From: Mike G To: Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:44 AM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Dampier (was
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Apr 7, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "Mike G" <msg_53@...>
                                    To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 8:44 AM
                                    Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Dampier (was Article from _The Economist_)


                                    <snip>
                                    >
                                    > I also corrected for what might be considered a "bias" in a manley-
                                    > type production figure: the NBA has overall been
                                    > losing "productivity", on a per-game basis. Thus, all 30-year-olds
                                    > have been around long enough to see a significant decrease in
                                    > production, among all players.
                                    >
                                    > My figures show a per-game/per-team high around 144 in the mid-'80s,
                                    > which has since dropped to about 125. Not sure of the manley
                                    > formula Ed used, but I'm applying one equally to teams and
                                    > individuals; using a formula like the one BobC layed out.
                                    >

                                    I used a no-coefficient MC formula. I don't think it will make much
                                    difference.

                                    > Briefly, I see an average change based on age that looks like this:
                                    >
                                    > %inc is average increase (decrease if negative) of the age group
                                    > that went on to play the next year, in "manley credits".
                                    >

                                    [...]
                                    >
                                    > For 519 players age 29 who went on to play in their 30th year, an
                                    > average loss of 9.4% has occurred.
                                    >
                                    Breaking down into statistical categories, here's what I have for
                                    30-year-olds:

                                    Poss -.066
                                    2% .005
                                    eFG% .007
                                    FT% .002
                                    OR% -.014
                                    DR% -.023
                                    AST -.011
                                    BLK -.065
                                    TO -.018

                                    Possessions are down 6.6%, accounting for much of the Manley Credits
                                    decrease. (I'm using medians for the numbers above.) Shooting percentages,
                                    however, are largely unchanged. The other stats have a lot of noise. My web
                                    page has all this in graphical form:

                                    http://members.rogers.com/edkupfer/images/effects_of_aging.htm


                                    --

                                    ed
                                  • Gabe Farkas
                                    i m curious, among the elite players, who at age 34 experienced a 300% increase in both offensive and defensive rebounding? ...
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Apr 7, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      i'm curious, among the elite players, who at age 34
                                      experienced a 300% increase in both offensive and
                                      defensive rebounding?


                                      --- igor_eduardo_k�pfer <edkupfer@...> wrote:
                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: "Michael Tamada" <tamada@...>
                                      > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                                      > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:02 AM
                                      > Subject: RE: [APBR_analysis] Re: Dampier (was
                                      > Article from _The Economist_)
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > >Interesting differences in the graphs; the first
                                      > one suggested a peak at
                                      > age 26
                                      > >then a strange final peak at age 30 followed by
                                      > steep declines. The second
                                      > >and third graphs, which I believe to be the better
                                      > ones, suggest a peak at
                                      > ages
                                      > >26 and 27 (age 27 averaging 100% of the age 26
                                      > performance) followed by 3
                                      > almost
                                      > >flat years and then a substantial decline after age
                                      > 30.
                                      > >
                                      > >BobC's numbers seems to be based more on seasons in
                                      > the league rather than
                                      > age, but
                                      > >seem to point to peaks at age 24-25 and declines
                                      > starting around 29-30, so
                                      > a year
                                      > >or two earlier. But he was looking at a broader
                                      > set of players than the
                                      > All-NBAers,
                                      > >and it wouldn't surprise me if MikeG is right that
                                      > the star players have
                                      > later peaks
                                      > >or at least delayed precipitous declines, relative
                                      > to the kinds of players
                                      > who are
                                      > >washed up at age 31.
                                      >
                                      > I've uploaded a few more graphs, focusing on
                                      > specific stats:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      http://members.rogers.com/edkupfer/images/effects_of_aging.htm
                                      >
                                      > They show that some things, like FT% and defensive
                                      > rebounding rates, are
                                      > largely unaffected by aging, while other stats, like
                                      > turnovers and
                                      > possessions, are largely determined by a players
                                      > age.
                                      >
                                      > I hope my graphs are clear. I don't know too much
                                      > about making them, and
                                      > used this opportunity to practise a bit. The details
                                      > of each graph show the
                                      > interquartile range, between which half of all
                                      > observations can be found.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ed
                                      >
                                      >


                                      __________________________________
                                      Do you Yahoo!?
                                      Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
                                      http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
                                    • igor eduardo küpfer
                                      ... From: Gabe Farkas To: Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 7:17 PM Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] Re:
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Apr 7, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Gabe Farkas" <gabefark@...>
                                        To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 7:17 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Dampier (was Article from _The Economist_)


                                        > i'm curious, among the elite players, who at age 34
                                        > experienced a 300% increase in both offensive and
                                        > defensive rebounding?

                                        Er, that is an error. That was Marques Johnson, who did that after missing
                                        two seasons. The increase was over his 31-year-old performance.

                                        ed
                                      • Michael Tamada
                                        ... From: Mike G [mailto:msg_53@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 5:44 AM [...] ... [...] ... So players peak at age 25 by your calculations, very
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Apr 8, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Mike G [mailto:msg_53@...]
                                          Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 5:44 AM

                                          [...]

                                          >age %inc SS#
                                          [...]
                                          >24 .044 771
                                          >25 -.011 734

                                          So players peak at age 25 by your calculations, very similar
                                          to BobC's figure. Younger than the figure that Ed had, but
                                          of course he was looking at all-pro players.


                                          --MKT
                                        • John Hollinger
                                          And other players such as Terry Cummings and Ron Harper ... just becoming ... Cummings? I don t think Terry Cummings will stop shooting until he dies or his
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Apr 10, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            And other players such as Terry Cummings and Ron Harper
                                            > seem to extend their careers by stopping from shooting period, and
                                            just becoming
                                            > defensive role players.
                                            >

                                            Cummings? I don't think Terry Cummings will stop shooting until he
                                            dies or his arm falls off.
                                          • Michael Tamada
                                            ... From: John Hollinger [mailto:alleyoop2@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:58 PM ... Oops, right you are. Still he did _reduce_ his shooting later
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Apr 12, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: John Hollinger [mailto:alleyoop2@...]
                                              Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 5:58 PM

                                              > And other players such as Terry Cummings and Ron Harper
                                              >> seem to extend their careers by stopping from shooting period, and
                                              >just becoming
                                              >> defensive role players.
                                              >>
                                              >
                                              >Cummings? I don't think Terry Cummings will stop shooting until he
                                              >dies or his arm falls off.

                                              Oops, right you are. Still he did _reduce_ his shooting later in his
                                              career, after ... was it a leg injury, or the heart problem, that
                                              caused him to miss most of the 1993 season? Anyway, prior to that
                                              he jacked up FGas at a Cummings-esque 25+ per 48 minutes; after that
                                              he was under 18 per 48. Which is not exactly shy shooting, but I do
                                              remember noticing the difference in his style when he played with the
                                              Sonics; he was basically a role-playing backup center instead of a
                                              shot-happy PF.


                                              --MKT
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.